On 4/18/2013 4:58 PM, fom wrote: > On 4/18/2013 1:46 AM, fom wrote: >> On 4/18/2013 1:42 AM, WM wrote: >>> On 18 Apr., 08:19, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: >>> >>>> WM cannot be an ultrafinitist and >>>> expect others to not hold him to >>>> task for it. >>> >>> There is a third way: potential infinity. >>> >> >> WM had been given examples of how that >> third way is implemented *mathematically*. >> >> WM cannot understand his own beliefs. >> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxastic_logic#Types_of_reasoners > > see "peculiar reasoner" > -necessarily inaccurate > > compare "conceited reasoner" > -will lapse into inaccuracy > > from "peculiar reasoner" > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_paradox > > "There is currently no generally accepted explanation > of Moore's Paradox in the philosophical literature. > However, while Moore's Paradox remains a philosophical > curiosity, Moorean-type sentences are used by logicians, > computer scientists, and those working in the artificial > intelligence community as examples of cases in which a > knowledge, belief, or information system is unsuccessful > in updating its knowledge/belief/information store in > light of new or novel information" > > >
from "moore's paradox"
"Many philosophers -- though by no means all -- also hold that Moore's Paradox arises not only at the level of assertion but also at the level of belief. Interestingly, one who believes an instance of a Moorean sentence is tantamount to one who is subject to or engaging in self-deception, at least on one standard way of describing it.